The Fifty First State

[Ailedhoo]

I agree totally with your analysis of the Confederates. However, I don't recall saying anything about them. My point was that the Right of Secession is the foundation of all justice. It is an individual right (e.g. you personally can decide to be a country of one). All statists deny this. They assert a right to decide for you. IOW, a statist is a slaver. There really isn't any difference.

O realy?

Considering how you demonstrate a statist is a label you use for those who disagree with you, including those with different ecomonic views then you, there has to be some... questioning on the issue.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What? No. The line in the movie, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" was a swipe at Bush and his "You're either with us or against us" line.

Are you absolutely sure?

 

[bhsup]

Yes, and if Lucas claims otherwise it just proves he is a part of the VLWC.

 

[Leoreth]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that's actually the case? We all know Lucas is pretty schizophrenic about his intention in his work, but that itself doesn't prove anything.

 

[Verarde]

I can't remember which movie that quote is from, but I'm thinking III. Either way, the concept of "either with or against me" predates Bush.

It's III.


Link to video.

 

[bhsup]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that's actually the case? We all know Lucas is pretty schizophrenic about his intention in his work, but that itself doesn't prove anything.

Nope. No actual hard evidence at all.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Who needs hard evidence when you have midichlorians?

 

[holy king]

I disagree with this. Many times individuals join a side for the values and ideals that fight embodies. The soldiery isn't always draftees, serfs, "made men", etc..

graffitis read: "day-trip to paris" "see you on the boulevard" and "to war, the tip of my sabre is itching"

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I can never read the word "soldiery" anymore without pronouncing it like Michael Palin in his role as Pilate in Life of Brian.

 

[Leoreth]

Who needs hard evidence when you have midichlorians?

Search your feelings; you know it to be true.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

The fall of the Republic is all Jar-Jars fault!!!

 

[Phrossack]

The fall of the Republic is all Jar-Jars fault!!!

Partly, yes. Why he was never killed during the purges is beyond me.

 

[Abegweit]

Considering how you demonstrate a statist is a label you use for those who disagree with you, including those with different ecomonic views then you, there has to be some... questioning on the issue.

Nonsense. Statist is a term with a meaning: it refers to those who believe in the necessity of the state. This term is in turn defined as that institution which has a monopoly on the use of force within a particular geographic area. I've always found it interesting to see how statists object to the use of a simple descriptive term. It seems to imply that they are somehow ashamed of their views. Doesn't it?

As I said, by definition the state is that institution which has a monopoly over the use of this. This implies that Mundanes are obliged to follow the orders of the state, in a fashion exactly equivalent to the way that antebellum slaves were obliged to follow the orders of their masters. The US Civil War did not abolish slavery; it nationalised it. Note well that slavery implies a necessity to report to a master. It does not mean the master controls the slaves every move, simply that he claims the right to so on his sole prerogative. It follows that there is no difference between a citizen and a slave. They are the same thing.

As for economic views, some are statist and some are not. This fact says nothing about their correctness. I do, of course, have my own opinion about that. As do you. You believe in the use of politics to impose your will on other people. I do not. I support that right of every individual to interact with other individuals as he so chooses, subject only to the caveat that the latter has the right to walk away if he in turn chooses.

Your approach is statist. You deny him the right to walk away. You may think my approach is a pipe dream. Just don't get all huffy when I use descriptive terms about your thinking.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Nonsense. Statist is a term with a meaning: it refers to those who believe in the necessity of the state. This term is in turn defined as that institution which has a monopoly on the use of force within a particular geographic area. I've always found it interesting to see how statists object to the use of a simple descriptive term. It seems to imply that they are somehow ashamed of their views. Doesn't it?

Excuse me?

Statism is the idea of of the state as authority and the idea of the authority of goverment. A wise man once noted "while, by that definition, most people and ideologies would be classified as statists, the term is colloquially used in the pejorative sense, to denote state fetishism and the belief in the government's omnipotence and unconditional good intentions." The left and right of the ecomonic line both process anti-statists, universally both in forms of anarchism, along with Marxists and left-libertarians on the left and anarcho-capitalists, right wing liberaterians. and some conseratives.

As I said, by definition the state is that institution which has a monopoly over the use of this. This implies that Mundanes are obliged to follow the orders of the state, in a fashion exactly equivalent to the way that antebellum slaves were obliged to follow the orders of their masters. The US Civil War did not abolish slavery; it nationalised it. Note well that slavery implies a necessity to report to a master. It does not mean the master controls the slaves every move, simply that he claims the right to so on his sole prerogative. It follows that there is no difference between a citizen and a slave. They are the same thing.

Now your entering into conspiracy theory. "No differene between a citizen and a slave?" The reasoning is... questionable. We generully gained more personal power over the last centuries.

As for economic views, some are statist and some are not. This fact says nothing about their correctness. I do, of course, have my own opinion about that. As do you. You believe in the use of politics to impose your will on other people. I do not. I support that right of every individual to interact with other individuals as he so chooses, subject only to the caveat that the latter has the right to walk away if he in turn chooses.

I like how you think I impose my will on others via politics.

Your "I'm right, your wrong" attitude is... questionable and jerkish.

Your approach is statist. You deny him the right to walk away. You may think my approach is a pipe dream. Just don't get all huffy when I use descriptive terms about your thinking.

I am not going huffy. Your are just proving to be jerkish in your... "arguments."

 

[Traitorfish]

Nonsense. Statist is a term with a meaning: it refers to those who believe in the necessity of the state. This term is in turn defined as that institution which has a monopoly on the use of force within a particular geographic area. I've always found it interesting to see how statists object to the use of a simple descriptive term. It seems to imply that they are somehow ashamed of their views. Doesn't it?

Not really, I think they just react badly to the childish, overtly insulting way in which you use it. Perhaps there's a little resentment on the part of some more enthusiastic partisans about being lumped in with the hate foe, but they're a minority, and I've found that most statists are pretty okay with the term as long as it's made clear in the course of the discussion that the term is being used in a strictly technical sense.

 

[GamezRule]

It's almost as if you think that humanity is perfect and is actually capable of peacefully living in a world without government. For all of our history, we have organized a government on some level. In anarchism, the strong will always rise over the weak, so if we have anarchism, it will only lead to dictatorship. Anybody who seriously espouses the idea that humanity can function in a stateless environment ultimately is either ignorant of the basic truths of humanity, or wishes to capitalize on the power vacuum and gain power for themselves.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's almost as if you think that humanity is perfect and is actually capable of peacefully living in a world without government. For all of our history, we have organized a government on some level.

That depends what you mean by "government". The state, which is really what anarchists take issue with, is a phenomenon of the last six thousand years, give or take, and while it's certainly true that social complexity tends towards statehood, it's not obvious that the sort of simple, functionalist relationship that you describe actually exists, and most scholars of the subject would in fact tends to reject it as a viewpoint that is at best ideological.

In anarchism, the strong will always rise over the weak, so if we have anarchism, it will only lead to dictatorship.

How do you figure?

 

[GamezRule]

Humans are fundamentally selfish creatures. This will never change and makes any type of anarchy impossible. What happens when a government loses control over an area?

Also, while the modern complex state is a phenomenon of the last 6000ish years, a state can also be simple. The concept of a "government" has existed from the very first time multiple humans worked together in some fashion and one took led the rest. The human race is drawn to this type of social relationship.

 

[Abegweit]

Humans are fundamentally selfish creatures. This will never change and makes any type of anarchy impossible.

This actually is one of the main reasons to abolish the state. If you really think that is true, giving them control over others is the height of folly..

What happens when a government loses control over an area?

People act decently and peaceably towards each other. Fights between rival gangs are not at all the same thing.

Also, while the modern complex state is a phenomenon of the last 6000ish years, a state can also be simple. The concept of a "government" has existed from the very first time multiple humans worked together in some fashion and one took led the rest. The human race is drawn to this type of social relationship.

Government <> state. Of course, people need government. No one is claiming otherwise.

 

[Abegweit]

Excuse me?

Statism is the idea of of the state as authority and the idea of the authority of government.

Absolutely correct. That's what statism is. What precisely is the difference between your definition and mine?

A wise man once noted "while, by that definition, most people and ideologies would be classified as statists, the term is colloquially used in the pejorative sense, to denote state fetishism and .."

Funny. When I google this quote, I get this post. Who was this man? BTW, what do you think the difference is between "the idea of state as government" and "state fetishism? It seems like the same thing to me.

"...the belief in the government's omnipotence and unconditional good intentions.

Your "wise man" just invented this part. Statists are quite ready to admit that this is not true and any anarchist would acknowledge it. The fact that statists acknowledge it makes the fetish even stranger.

No differene between a citizen and a slave?" The reasoning is... questionable. We generully gained more personal power over the last centuries.

Really? In what way? The amount of personal liberty has declined massively in the last hundred years. Searches w/o warrants. Arbitrary detentions. SWAT teams. They do what they want in a way that they never would have dared to back then.

Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 900 days for daring to expose his masters for just a small piece of what they are. Millions more Americans rot in their hell holes. Private slavers would never treat their property like that. Forced to make the choice, I would far prefer the whip.

I like how you think I impose my will on others via politics.

That's what politics is all about - imposing your will on others. Or are you telling me that you don't want to make laws and regulations about how other people run their lives?

I am not going huffy.

Oh, yes you are. You were huffy in the first place and it's not getting better.